Spence BR sac bunt attempt. Ball bounces up in the air off of the plate towards 3rd base line. Batter freezes in batter's box as catcher starts to go after the ball. Catcher runs into batter still in the box . Is the batter/runner out for interference?
dash_riprock Dan Iassogna call it INT. Kemp out on interference | MLB.com Your browser does not support iframes.
Matt dash_riprock wroteDan Iassogna call it INT. Kemp out on interference | MLB.com He didn't freeze, though; he moved out in front of the catcher.
bob jenkins Unlike Tim C, it sounds like INT to me. If the batter had a chance to start running and didn't, then he's liable for interference.
Matt bob jenkins wroteUnlike Tim C, it sounds like INT to me. If the batter had a chance to start running and didn't, then he's liable for interference. That's what I would have.
DG It was not a sac bunt either, just a ball batted in front of the plate which went up the air, and Kemp stepped in front of the catcher and just watched the ball.
rbmartin The same thing happened to Johnny Cueto today on a sac bunt in Reds vs Pirates. In this case he really didn't have time to start running. Cueto out on batter interference | MLB.com Your browser does not support iframes.
Matt rbmartin wroteThe same thing happened to Johnny Cueto today on a sac bunt in Reds vs Pirates. In this case he really didn't have time to start running. Cueto out on batter interference | MLB.com If he has time to track the ball off the bat, he has time to start running. INT.
Manny A Matt wroteIf he has time to track the ball off the bat, he has time to start running. INT. Wow, what "time to track"? He started to looked up to see if the ball might go fair or foul, and almost simultaneously the catcher ran into his back. I've got a tangle/untangle on this one. Kemp's was pretty obvious. He looked up and then stepped in front of the catcher.
bob jenkins rbmartin wroteThe same thing happened to Johnny Cueto today on a sac bunt in Reds vs Pirates. In this case he really didn't have time to start running. Cueto out on batter interference | MLB.com Yes, he did. The batter is protected on the "tangle-untangle" if he nearly immediately starts to first when the ball is batted. Standing there takes away the protection.
Matt Manny A wroteWow, what "time to track"? He started to looked up to see if the ball might go fair or foul, and almost simultaneously the catcher ran into his back. Exactly. He looked up and didn't run. This is INT.
jicecone If you stand there and watch the ball or you freeze after a bunt, instead of running to first, then I go along with Tim C. Your out. When the Batter and Fielder are both doing what they are supposed to, then you have a tangle/untangle situation.
JJ rpumpire wrote1975 World Series: Show this to Dan Iassogna and don't tell him what the umpire ruled. 😀 JJ
Tim C One I answered before the video was inserted. Plus there is no rule that requires any runner (or batter runner) to run at any time. I would still question either of the two calls as interference. But people are changing the way the game is played and called.